Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Trade topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee rejects 20‑acre-for-boat‑landing trade, asks landowner to propose cash instead

Ashland County Forest and Recreation Committee · March 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The recreation officer reported an adjacent landowner offered 20 acres in exchange for an easement to a primitive boat landing; after debate about value, public access and legal options, the committee voted to decline the trade and ask the owner to make a cash offer.

At a committee meeting, the recreation officer described a proposed land deal in which an adjacent property owner offered to trade 20 acres of land to the county in exchange for an easement to a primitive boat landing on county property.

The recreation officer said, "He wants to trade 20 acres of property for a boat landing easement," and committee members questioned whether that was equitable given the county landing's limited access and lack of infrastructure. Committee members noted the boat landing is "primitive" — no ramp or dock and limited room to turn a pickup and trailer — and suggested a $20,000 valuation for improvements would be excessive.

Members discussed legal alternatives including adverse-possession questions and consulting the county attorney. One committee member moved that the committee "turn his offer down and ask him if he's interested in the dollar," and the motion was seconded; Gary is recorded as the seconder. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Members directed staff to continue negotiating and to explore lower-cost easement purchase options (a $5,000 easement figure was mentioned in discussion) and to consult with county counsel about the county's rights given historic use by adjacent property owners. Speakers also suggested engaging local residents if a cash purchase becomes necessary.

The committee’s action was procedural: the motion to reject the trade and request a cash proposal passed, with staff asked to report back on legal options and any response from the landowner.